MACA Nos. 607/2015 and connected Motor Accident Claims Appeals (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam)

MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 1 ## _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945_ ## _MACA NO. 607 OF 2015_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 516/2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR_ ## _APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS:_ _1 BHASKARAN, AGED 69 YEARS, F/O.DECEASED HASEEN, AYILLYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTHY, NORTH PARAVUR_ _2 ADITHYA, DATE OF BIRTH: 19.02.2006, BROTHER'S S/O.DECEASED HASEEN, AYILLYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTHY, NORTH PARAVUR REPRESENTED BY GUARDINA MOTHER MANJULA)._ _3 MANJULA, SISTER IN LAW OF DECEASED HASEEN, AYILLYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTHY, NORTH PARAVUR,_ _BY ADVS. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:_ _1 THE M.D., KSRTC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 2 _TRIVANDRUM PIN 695 001._ _2 SUBHASH CHANDRABOSE, S/O.KOCHATHAN, NATAPPILLY HOUSE, KURUMBILAVE KOTTA DESOM, CHAZHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 571._ _3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., FIRST FLOOR MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAID ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 513._ _4 MR.M.B.UDYABHANU, S/O.BHASKARAN, MANJAKUDILIL UDESH BHAVAN, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA, PIN 688 524, (DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. KL04 S 2408)_ _5 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CHERTHALA BRANCH, CHERTHALA, PIN 688 524 (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. KL 04 S 2408)_ _BY ADVS. ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN K.SHERIN MOHAN SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD SRI.V.R.RAJESH AGINOV MATHAPPAN_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.732/2015, 746/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 3 ## _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 732 OF 2015_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 518/2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH PARAVUR_ ## _APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS:_ _1 BHASKARAN, H/O.DECEASED CICILY, AYILLYAM, VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTHU, NORTH PARAVUR._ _2 ADITHYA, AGED 8 YEARS, DATE OF BIRTH:19.02.2006, GRANDSON OF DECEASED CICILY, AYILLYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER MANJULA)._ - _3 MANJULA,_ _AGED 32 YEARS,_ _DAUGHTER IN LAW/O.DECEASED CICILY, AYILLYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR._ _BY ADVS. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:_ _1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC,_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 4 _KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, CORPORATION(KSRTC), TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001._ - _2 SUBHASH CHANDRABOSE,_ _S/O.KOCHATHAN, NATAPPILLY HOUSE, KURUMBILAVE KOTTA DESOM, CHAZHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 571._ - _3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., FIRST FLOOR, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN-683 513._ - _4 MR.M.B.UDAYABHANU,_ _S/O.BHASKARAN, MANJAKUDILIL UDESH BHAVAN, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA,PIN-688524.(DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL-04 S 2408)._ - _5 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CHERTHALA BRANCH, CHERTHALA, PIN-688 524,(INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL-04 S 2408)._ _BY ADVS._ _SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. SRI.A.R.GEORGE K.SHERIN MOHAN A.R.GEORGE SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AGINOV MATHAPPAN ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A._ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.607/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 5 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 746 OF 2015_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 227/2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH_ ## _PARAVUR_ ## _APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS:_ _BHASKARAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.VELANDI, AYILLYAM VEEDU, P.O. THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT._ _BY ADVS. JEENA JOSEPH G.D.PANICKER_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:_ - _1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001._ _2 SUBHASH CHANDRABOSE, S/O. KOCHATHAN, NATAPPILLY HOUSE, KURUMBILAVE KOTTA DESOM, CHAZHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 571._ - _3 M.B.UDAYABHANU, S/O. BHASKARAN, MANJAKUDILIL UDESH BHAVAN,_ _PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA-688524, (DRIVER CUM OWNER OF_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 6 _THE VEHICLE NO. KL 04-S 2408)._ _4 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CHERTHALA BRANCH, CHERTHALA-688524. (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. KL04 S 2408)._ _BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN._ _K.SHERIN MOHAN P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AGINOV MATHAPPAN ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A._ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.607/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 7 ## _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 748 OF 2015_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 517/2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH_ ## _PARAVUR_ ## _APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS:_ _1 MANJULA, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.DECEASED SUMAN, AYILYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTHU, NORTH PARAVUR._ _2 ADITHYA, MINOR, AGED 8 YEARS, S/O.DECEASED SUMAN, AYILYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTHU, NORTH PARAVUR.(REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER MANJULA)._ - _3 BHASKARAN, F/O.DECEASED SUMAN, AYILYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTHU, NORTH PARAVUR._ _BY ADVS. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:_ _1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 8 ## _TRIVANDRUM-695 001._ - _2 SUBHASH CHANDRABOSE, S/O.KOCHATHAN, NATAPPILLY HOUSE, KURUMBILAVE KOTTA DESOM, CHAZHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 571._ - _3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,_ _FIRST FLOOR, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVOOR-683 513._ - _4 M.B.UDAYABHANU,_ _S/O.BHASKARAN, MANJAKUDILIL UDESH BHAVAN, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA-688 524, (DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL-04 S 2408)._ _5 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CHERTHALA BRANCH, CHERTHALA, PIN-688 524 (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE)._ _BY ADVS._ _SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN._ _K.SHERIN MOHAN SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION_ _AGINOV MATHAPPAN ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A._ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.607/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 9 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 968 OF 2015_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 516/2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH_ ## _PARAVUR_ ## _APPELLANTS/5TH RESPONDENT:_ _UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,CHERTHALA BRANCH, CHERTHALA, PIN-688 524 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, “SHARANYA”, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11._ _BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW_ ## _RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:_ > _1. BHASKARAN, AYILYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTHU, NORTH PARAVUR._ _2. ADITHYA, MINOR, AGED 8 YEARS, S/O.DECEASED SUMAN, AYILYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTHU, NORTH PARAVUR.(REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER MANJULA)._ _3. MANJULA, AGED 32 YEARS,_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 10 _W/O.DECEASED SUMAN, AYILYAM VEEDU, P.O.THATHAPILLY, KUTTANTHURUTHU, NORTH PARAVUR._ _4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM-695 001._ _5. SUBHASH CHANDRABOSE, S/O.KOCHATHAN, NATAPPILLY HOUSE, KURUMBILAVE KOTTA DESOM, CHAZHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 571._ _6. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., FIRST FLOOR, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVOOR-683 513._ _BY ADVS. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.G.D.PANICKER SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.607/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 11 ## _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 1044 OF 2015_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 517/2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH_ ## _PARAVUR_ ## _APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS:_ _UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHERTHALA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-682 011._ _BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW_ ## _RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT 1 TO 3:_ - _1 MANJULA, W/O.LATE SUMAN, 'AYILLYAM' HOUSE, THATHAPILLY P.O., KUTTANTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 520._ _2 ADITHYA, MINOR, 'AYILLYAM' HOUSE, THATHAPILLY P.O., KUTTANTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683520., REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT._ - _3 BHASKARAN, 'AYILLYAM' HOUSE, THATHAPILLY P.O., KUTTANTHURUTH,_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 12 _NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 520._ - _4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001._ _5 SUBASH CHANDRABOSE, S/O.KOCHATHAN, NATAPPILLY HOUSE, KURUMBILAVE, KOTTA DESOM, CHAZHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 326._ - _6 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUNICIPAL SHOPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARUR, PIN 683 520._ _BY ADVS. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC SRI.G.D.PANICKER ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A._ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.607/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 13 ## _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 1046 OF 2015_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 518/2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH_ ## _PARAVUR_ ## _APPELLANT:_ _UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHERTHALA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-682 011._ _BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW_ ## _RESPONDENTS:_ - _1 BHASKARAN,_ _'AYILLYAM' HOUSE, THATHAPILLY P.O., KUTTANTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 520._ _2 ADITHYA, MINOR, 'AYILLYAM' HOUSE, THATHAPILLY P.O., KUTTANTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683520, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 3RD RESPONDENT._ - _3 MANJULA, 'AYILLYAM' HOUSE, THATHAPILLY P.O., KUTTANTHURUTH,_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 14 _NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 520._ - _4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001._ _5 SUBASH CHANDRABOSE, S/O.KOCHATHAN, NATAPPILLY HOUSE, KURUMBILAVE, KOTTA DESOM, CHAZHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 320._ _6 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 520._ _BY ADVS. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. SRI.G.D.PANICKER_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.607/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 15 ## _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA,_ ## _1945_ ## _MACA NO. 1060 OF 2015_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 227/2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH_ ## _PARAVUR_ ## _APPELLANT:_ _UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHERTHALA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI 11._ _BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW_ ## _RESPONDENTS:_ _1 BHASKARAN, "AYILLYAM" VEEDU, THATHAPPILLY PO, KUTTANTHURUTH, NORTHH PARAVUR, PIN 683 520._ _2 THE MANGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATAE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001_ - _3 SUBASH CHANDRABOSE, S/O.KOCHATHAN, NATAPPILLY HOUSE, KURUMBILAVU KOTTA DESOM, CHAZHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIASTRICT,_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 16 _PIN 680 320._ _BY ADVS. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC SRI.G.D.PANICKER ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A._ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.607/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 17 ## **JUDGMENT** **[MACA Nos.607/2015, 732/2015, 746/2015, 748/2015, 968/2015, 1044/2015, 1046/2015, 1060/2015]** All these appeals arose from a common award dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV).Nos.516 of 2007, 517 of 2018, 518 of 2007 and 227 of 2008. Altogether, four claim petitions were filed, out of which three claim petitions were seeking compensation for the death, whereas the 4[th] one was seeking compensation for damages to the property of the said claimant. The petitions were filed in respect of a motor accident that occurred on 16.02.2007. (For the sake of convenience, all the parties in these appeals are referred to on the basis of their respective ranks in the claim petitions.) 2. According to the claimants, the accident occurred in the following manner: On the date of the accident, when the Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-07/T 9684(hereinafter referred to as Marithi car), driven by one Suman, reached a place called Mathimoola, it collided with a KSRTC bus. Due to the impact, the car was lifted in the air and dropped on the bonnet of the Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.KL-04/S-2408 MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 18 (hereinafter referred to as Alto car), which was coming behind the said Maruti car. Due to the impact, the driver of the Maruti car and the two passengers therein sustained injuries and were taken to the hospital, but all of them succumbed to the injuries. 3. O.P.(MV).No.516 of 2017 was filed by the legal heirs of the passenger in the Maruti car, who died in the accident. O.P. (MV).No.517 of 2007 was filed by the legal heirs of the person who drove the Maruti car at the relevant time, and O.P.(MV).No.518 of 2007 was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased passenger in the said car. M.A.C.A.No.227 of 2008 was filed by the registered owner of the said Maruti car seeking compensation for the damages sustained in the accident. The specific contention put forward by the respective claimants was that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the KSRTC bus and the Alto car. The 1[st] respondent was the Managing Director of the KSRTC, and the 2[nd] respondent was the driver of the KSRTC bus. The 3[rd] respondent was the insurer of the Maruti car, the Additional 4[th] respondent in the claim petition was the driver cum owner of the Alto car and the 5[th] respondent was the insurer of the Alto car. MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 19 4. In response to the averments contained in the claim petition, the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents filed a detailed written statement denying the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent in driving the KSRTC bus. According to them, the 2[nd] respondent was driving the vehicle with due care and caution, and the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti car and also the driver of the Alto car bearing registration No.KL-04/S-2408 coming from the opposite direction. It was contended that both the said vehicles were driven at excessive speed as if they were participating in a race. They also disputed the quantum of compensation. 5. The 3[rd] respondent insurer of the Maruti car filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the KSRTC bus and Alto car. It was pointed out that the Mathilakam Police registered crime No.126 of 2007 against the 2[nd] respondent driver of the bus. Even if the 3[rd] respondent admitted the existence of valid policy in respect of the Maruti car, they raised specific contention that the policy issued in the said case was only a ‘liability only’ policy, which would not take the risk of the passengers carried in the said vehicle, as no MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 20 additional premium was collected from them. Thus, they sought exoneration from the liability. 6. The 4[th] respondent, the driver of the Alto car, filed a written statement contending that the accident was caused due to negligence on the part of the KSRTC bus and stating that he cannot be held responsible for any compensation. He also contended that, he was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the said vehicle was insured with the 5[th] respondent Insurance Company at the time of the accident. Therefore, if there is any liability at all, that should be indemnified by the 5[th] respondent. 7. The 5th respondent, the insurer of the Alto car, filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy with respect to the said car but disputed the liability on various grounds. They denied the negligence on the part of the 4th respondent and also disputed the quantum of compensation. 8. All the aforesaid cases were tried together and disposed of by a common order. The evidence in these cases consists of oral evidence of PW1 to PW4 and as documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked from the side of the MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 21 claimants. From the side of the respondents, RW1 to RW3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked. 9. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti car, who died in the accident and also on the part of the driver of the Alto car, the 4[th] respondent in the claim petition. The liability between them were apportioned at the ratio of 75:25 between the drivers of the Maruti car and the Alto car. Different amounts were fixed as compensation, and since it was found that 75% liability was upon the driver of the Maruti car, and 25% was on the part of the Addl.4[th] respondent, 75% of the amount as per award was directed to be satisfied by the 5[th] respondent Insurance Company. Challenging the said finding imposing the liability upon them, the 5[th] respondent Insurance Company has approached this Court by filing M.A.C.A.No.1044 of 2015, 1046 of 2015, 1060 of 2015 and 968 of 2015. Challenging the negligence imposed upon the driver of the Maruti car and also seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimants have filed M.A.C.A.No.746 of 2015, 732 of 2015, 607 of 2015 and 748 of 2015. MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 22 10. Heard Smt.Jeena Joseph, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian, learned standing counsel for the KSRTC, Sri.P.Mathews Jacob, learned senior counsel for the 5[th] respondent, Sri.A.R.George, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and Smt.K.Sherin appearing for the 5[th] respondent in the appeal submitted by the claimants. 11. The first question to be considered relates to the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence. From the award, it can be seen that the Tribunal has made an elaborate discussion referring to the evidence adduced by both sides, touching upon the aforesaid issue. From the materials, it can be gathered that the oral evidence relating to the question of negligence was that of PW4, RW1 to RW3. Besides the same, Ext.A1 FIR, A2 final report and Ext.B3 copy of scene mahazar were also referred to by the Tribunal, to adjudicate the said question. It is to be noted that, as per Ext.A1, a crime was registered by the Mathilakam Police against the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, the driver of the bus. After the investigation, the police submitted Ext.A2 final report, implicating the said respondent as the accused. As per Ext.B6 award, the Motor MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 23 Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alapuzha considered O.P.(MV).No.1201 of 2007, which arose from the very same accident and held that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus and the entire liability in respect of the same was imposed upon him. Consequently, the 1st respondent, the Managing Director of the KSRTC, was held responsible for paying the compensation. 12. Despite the above, after analyzing the evidence of PW4, RW1 and RW2, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the driver of the KSRTC bus was not at all responsible for the accident and the liability was imposed upon the driver of the Maruti car and the driver of the Alto car, the Addl.4[th] respondent herein in the ratio as above. 13. When going through the evidence of PW4, it can be seen that he was examined by the claimants to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus and the Alto car. According to him, he witnessed the said incident, as at the relevant time, he was travelling in another car. As per the proof affidavit submitted by him, while he was travelling in his car and when he reached the MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 24 place called Mathimoola, the KSRTC bus came from the opposite side and hit the Maruti car. Due to the impact, the Maruti car was lifted in the air and fell on the Alto car. It was also stated by him that, the accident occurred as the Alto car did not slow down when the Maruti car was overtaking. In the course of the examination, he stated that the KSRTC bus was also at high speed. However, an overall analysis of the deposition of PW4 does not inspire confidence as far as the statement given by him with regard to the negligence on the side of the driver of the Alto car is concerned. This is particularly because, apart from the mere statement that the Alto car did not slow down when the Maruti car was overtaking the said vehicle, there is absolutely nothing to indicate any negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car. Even if, the said statement is accepted, that would not indicate any negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car, as care and caution was to be taken by the driver of the vehicle which was overtaking and merely because the vehicle which was being overtaken did not slow down, the negligence cannot be attributed as such, in normal circumstances. When going to the evidence of RW1, it is to be noted that he was a driver of the MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 25 KSRTC. His version is to the effect that after seeing the Maruti car and also the Alto car coming from the opposite side at excessive speed as if they were competing with each other, he applied sudden brake and stopped the vehicle. Both the cars hit each other, and due to the impact, the Maruti car came and hit the bus. However, the evidence of RW1 also cannot be accepted because of more than one reason. First of all, RW1 was the driver of the bus, against whom the criminal prosecution has already been launched. Therefore, his version was a highly interested testimony. Besides the same, the version of RW1 as to the accident is completely different from the version of the accident highlighted by the claimants and also of other witnesses. The manner of the accident as mentioned in the Police records is also completely different. This is particularly because, according to RW1, before the Maruti car hit the bus, it hit the Alto car, and it lost control and hit the bus. Such version was not there in the statements of any other witnesses. Besides the same, he also submitted that, the bus was stationary at the time of the accident. He further stated that, he stopped the vehicle on the extreme left side of the road and only thereafter the Maruti car hit on the right MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 26 side of the bus. However, on going through Ext.P3 scene mahazar, it can be seen that the place of accident is at the middle of the road. The total width of the road was 9.42 meters and there was yellow line on both the sides of the road. The spot of the accident was identified as 3.44 meters towards the east from the yellow line on the western side of the road and 3.35 meters directly west from the yellow line on the eastern side of the road. Therefore, from the spot of the accident as is revealed from Ext.B3 scene mahazar, the accident occurred on the middle of the road and if the bus was stopped at the extreme western side of the road, the accident in the manner as is discernible from the records would not have happened. Moreover, it is also evident that, due to the impact of the hit, the Maruti car got lifted in the air and dropped on the bonnet of the Alto car, which was coming behind. Under normal circumstances such an impact of lifting the car would have occurred only if the bus was a moving one. Therefore, the deposition of RW1 is also not convincing. 14. Another piece of evidence relied on in support of the said contention of the driver of the KSRTC was the deposition of RW2. According to RW2, he was a passenger in the KSRTC bus at MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 27 the relevant time. According to him, he noticed the two cars coming from the opposite direction at excessive speed and one of the cars hit on the bus. He also asserts that, the accident occurred as the Alto car did not slow down while the Maruti car was overtaking the said car. In one part of his deposition he stated that, he noticed the vehicles only when the bus applied a sudden brake. This would indicate that the part of the incident that occurred before the bus applied the sudden brake was not witnessed by him. There is also a high improbability in the version of the RW2. According to him, he was sitting on the second row on the left side of the bus and from that position it is doubtful as to whether he had noticed the entire sequence of events right from the speed of the car coming from the opposite direction in such a manner as both of the said vehicles were in a race. Therefore, the deposition of RW2 also cannot be accepted to uphold the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Alto car as well. RW3, the driver of the Alto car, deposed that, while he was driving his car, the Maruti car hit the KSRTC bus while it was moving in front of his car and due to the impact, the car fell on the MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 28 bonnet of his car thereby sustained damages to the car. He also stated that, his wife who was travelling along with him in the car sustained injuries and seeking compensation he filed O.P.(M.V) No. 1201/2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The said claim petition was allowed as per Ext.B6 award, holding the driver of the KSRTC responsible for the said accident. 15. Thus, after analyzing the entire materials placed on record, it is not possible to accept the finding entered by the Tribunal, holding the driver of the Alto car responsible for the accident. The Tribunal mainly relied on the deposition referred to above for the said purpose and also relied on a newspaper report which was produced as Ext.B4, where a report in respect of the accident and manner in which it occurred were reported. I have already found that, the evidence of PW4, RW1 and RW2 cannot be relied on due to the reasons mentioned above. The other document which was relied on by the Tribunal was the Ext.B4, a paper report. As far as the said report is concerned, no evidentiary value can be assigned to the same as it was a report by a person, who had not witnessed the said incident. Therefore, MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 29 no reliance can be placed upon the same, as it was only a hearsay evidence. Therefore, after analyzing the entire materials placed before this Court, I find that the finding of the Tribunal holding the driver of the Alto car responsible to the accident, was without any basis. Going by the details available on record as to the manner in which the accident occurred, it can be seen that, the Maruti car hit on the bus and it was lifted in the air and hit the Alto car again. Even according to the claimants and the other witnesses, the negligence was attributed to the driver of the Alto car merely on the ground that, he did not slow down the vehicle when the Maruti car was overtaking. As this Court observed that, that reason alone cannot be sufficient to hold the driver of the Alto car responsible for the accident, as there is nothing on record to indicate the actual speed at which the said vehicle was being driven. 16. This leads to the next question as to the person who was responsible for the accident. It is a fact that the accident occurred due to the collision of two vehicles, namely a Maruti car and the KSRTC bus. The police have conducted an investigation in this case and found that the driver of a KSRTC bus as well as MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 30 the driver of the car were responsible for the accident. A charge and B charge were filed against the both said drivers. The driver of the car is no more as he died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Going by the consistent version of all the witnesses as to the manner in which the incident took place, i.e., the Maruti car hitting the bus at the first instance and due to the impact it falling upon the bonnet of the Alto car, the driver of the Maruti car, cannot be exonerated from the liability completely. Evidently, he was overtaking another car, unmindful of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction. It is also to be noted that as per Ext.B3 Scene Mahazar, the accident occurred in the middle of the road, and if proper care had been taken by the driver of the KSRTC, the accident would have evaded as well. While considering the liability of the driver of KSRTC, the crucial aspects which cannot ignored are the Ext.A2 final report submitted by the police and also the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(M.V) No. 1201/2007, the award of which is already produced on record as Ext.B6. Those documents cannot be ignored, as the same indicates the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC also and yet another crucial aspect is that, the MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 31 Ext.B6 award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has become final as well. In such circumstances, the 2 nd respondent, the driver of the KSRTC bus cannot also be exonerated from the liability. In such circumstances, the only irresistible conclusion possible is that, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus and also that of the driver of the Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-7/T9684. Accordingly, the liability has to be apportioned among them in equal proportions. 17. While imposing liability upon the driver of the Maruti car, it will have certain consequences as far as the claim petition submitted are concerned. As far as O.P.(M.V) No. 517/2007 is concerned, the same is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased driver of the Maruti car. Consequent to the finding of contributory negligence on his part, the compensation receivable by the claimants therein will be 50% of the amount awarded. 18. As far as the O.P.(M.V) Nos.516/2007 and 518/2007 are concerned, both the said claim petitions were filed by the legal heirs of the passengers in the Maruti car who died due to the injuries sustained to the accident. The 3 rd respondent was the MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 32 insurer of the said car. The 3rd respondent has raised a specific contention that, the policy issued in this case was only 'Act only Policy', which would not take in coverge of the passengers carried in the said vehicle. Ext.B5 is the said policy as O.P(MV) Nos. 516/2007 and 518/2007 are filed seeking compensation for the death of the passengers. In the light of lack of coverage of policy, being “Act only” Policy, the 3rd respondent insurance company has to be exonerated from the liability and it is ordered accordingly. The next aspect relates to the quantum of compensation. The said issue is dealt with in the following manner; ## **O.P(M.V)No. 516/2017 (M.A.C.A No. 607/2015)** 19. This appeal is submitted by the claimants in the above referred claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation. The deceased was a passenger in the Maruti car. She was aged 27 years at the time of the accident and was working as an Office Assistant at M/s.Sree Naraya Guru Institute of Science and Technology (SNGIST). To substantiate the monthly income she was getting, Ext.A6 was produced, in which the amount shown as salary was Rs.5,390/-. It is seen from the award that the Tribunal has accepted the monthly income and calculated the MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 33 compensation, by making an addition of 50% towards future prospects. As the deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident and she left behind only one legal representative, namely the 1st petitioner, the father, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal expenses. After considering the materials placed on records, I do not find any legal infirmity as far as the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is concerned. 20. When moving on to the other head, of course it is seen that, no amount was granted towards pain and suffering, even though she died after almost three weeks of the accident while undergoing treatment. Similarly, no amount towards loss of estate was also granted. But it is to be noted that, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. As per the principles laid down in **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others** [2018 (3) KLT Online 3095 (SC)] and **United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur** [(2021) 11 SCC 780], the father of the deceased is entitled to compensation for the loss of MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 34 consortium at the rate of 40,000/-. However, no amount was granted under the said head. It was also held in **Satwinder Kaur** (supra), that the compensation is awarded for loss of consortium, no further amount needs to be granted towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, Rs.100,000/- awarded under the head of loss of love and affection was excessive. Thus, the proper compensation that ought to have been awarded was Rs.40,000/under the head of loss of consortium. Similarly, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was granted toward funeral expenses, which was excess by Rs.10,000/- as per the principles laid down in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi** [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] case. Thus, after considering all the heads in which the amounts were awarded by the Tribunal, I am of the view that there is no scope for enhancement in the quantum of compensation. 21. However, in this case, the Tribunal awarded only 25% of the amount determined by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimants herein. This is because 75% of contributory negligence was found on the part of the driver of the Maruti car in which the MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 35 deceased was travelling. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, as far as the claim for compensation in this claim petition is concerned, that was for the death of a passenger in a car and therefore, it was not a case of contributory negligence but on the other hand it was a case of composite negligence. It is a well settled position of law that, in a case of composite negligence, it shall be open for the claimants to seek compensation from any of the tortfeasors fully or partly as per their choice. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal restricting the recovery of the amount of compensation to 25% on account of the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in which he was travelling, from the 1st and 2nd respondents, the owner and driver of the bus, was not legally sustainable. The consequence of the said finding is that, it shall be open for the claimants in this claim petition to recover the compensation from any of the tortfeasors as their liability are jointly and severally. To be precise, nothing would preclude the claimants herein from proceedings to recover the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the said respondents, as they were joint tortfeasors. **O.P.(M.V) No. 517/2007 (M.A.C.A No. 748/2015)** MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 36 22. This claim petition is submitted by the legal heirs of the driver of the Maruti car, who died due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident. This Court has already held that he was also responsible for the accident, and his contributory negligence was fixed at 50%. In this claim petition, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,01,000/- and since the contributory negligence found by the Tribunal was 75%, the amount actually awarded was Rs.2,00,250/-. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident, and he claimed to be a businessman with a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal accepted the monthly income as Rs.3,000/- and calculated the compensation for loss of dependency by making an addition of 50% towards future prospects. 23. As far as the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be extremely on the lower side. It is to be noted that the accident occurred in the year 2007. As per the method of computation of monthly income evolved from the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed** MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 37 **Sadiq & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2014 (2) SCC 735]** the monthly income of an ordinary worker, even without any evidence can be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2004. As per the normal method of computation, an addition of Rs.500/- each per year is to be made to determine the monthly income for the subsequent years. While adopting the said method of computation, the monthly income in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2007 can be fixed as Rs.6,000/-. Of course, it is true that the amount shown as monthly income in the claim petition was Rs.3,000/-. However, the same would not preclude the Court from granting compensation by taking a higher monthly income if the facts and circumstances of the case justify the same. This is particularly because, while determining the compensation, it is the duty of the Court to ensure “just compensation” to the victims of the motor accident. In **Minu Rout & Another v.** **Satyapradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 695]** case, the Honourable Supreme Court has taken monthly income higher than what was claimed in the claim petition. In this case, MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 38 the legal heirs declared the monthly income, and it may also be possible that they may not be actually aware of the exact extent of the monthly income. In such circumstances, I am of the view that Rs.6,000/- can be accepted as the monthly income for the purpose of determining the compensation. As per the principle laid down in **Pranay Sethi (supra)** the addition to be made towards future prospects is 40% as the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident. Thus the compensation receivable by the claimants, would come to Rs.10,75,200/- (6,000+40%) x 12x 16x 2/3). The amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the said head was Rs.5,76,000/- and thus, the additional compensation under the head of loss of dependency would come to **Rs.4,99,200/-** . 24. In addition to that, a further sum of **Rs.15,000/-** is also to be granted under the head of loss of estate, as no amount was granted by the Tribunal. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC points out that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which was not at all warranted. The claimants in this claim petition are the wife, child and the father of the deceased. As per **Magma and** MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 39 **Satwinder Kaur** (supra), all of them were entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. It is also a settled position of law as per **Satwinder Kaur(supra)** , that when the compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, no separate amount needs to be granted, for loss of love and affection. In this case, the amount already awarded by the Tribunal for loss of consortium was Rs.1,00,000/- whereas the actual entitlement was Rs.1,20,000/-. Therefore, an additional amount of **Rs.20,000/-** is to be granted under the head of loss of consortium. At the same time, the amount of **Rs.100,000/-** granted towards loss of love and affection is to be deducted. Similarly, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses, which is in excess by **Rs.10,000/-** and this amount is also to be deducted. Thus, the additional compensation receivable by the appellant is determined as Rs.4,24,200/-(4,99,200 +20,000+15,000) – (100,000+10,000). Thus, the total compensation receivable by the claimants in this claim petition is determined as Rs.12,25,200/(8,01,000+4,24,200). Thus the claimants in this case, are entitled MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 40 to a compensation of Rs.6,12,600/- being 50% of the said amount, as this court found 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in this case. ## **O.P.(M.V) No. 518/2007 (M.A.C.A No.732/2015)** 25. This claim petition was submitted by the legal heirs of the passenger in the Maruti car who died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,28,600/- and permitted the recovery of Rs.1,32,150/- being 25% of the said amount, as the Tribunal found 75% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car in which he was travelling. 26. The deceased in this case was aged 52 years and was a house wife. The monthly income taken by the Tribunal was Rs.3,000/- and the compensation was calculated by making an addition of 15% towards future prospects. As regards the monthly income, it is to be noted that, since the accident occurred in the year 2007, the same appears to be on lower side. It is true that the monthly income claimed was only Rs.3,000/- which was accepted as well. However, it is to be noted that the deceased was a housewife and the services rendered by a housewife cannot be MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 41 measured in terms of money. However, for the purpose of calculating the compensation, it has to be converted in terms of money and while doing the exercise, the normal method of computation that is adopted in the other cases by following the principles laid down in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** and **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company.[(2014)2 SCC 735]** cannot be ignored. As per the method of computation, referred to above, in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2007, the monthly income can be safely fixed as Rs.6,000/-. As observed above, in **Minu Rout** **and another v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others [2013 (10) SCC 695]** the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pleased to take monthly income higher than what was claimed for. In such circumstances, a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- is taken for calculating compensation for dependency. As regards the addition to be made towards future prospects, as per **Pranay Sethi’s** case, it should be 10%, considering that the deceased was aged 52 at the time of the accident. While assessing the compensation with MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 42 above revised criteria, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency would come to **Rs.5,80,800/-** [(6000 + 10%) x 12 x 11 x 2/3]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the said head is Rs.3,03,600/- and thus, the additional compensation under the head of loss of dependency would come to **Rs.2,77,200/-** . In addition to that, the claimants are granted a further sum of **Rs.15,000/-** under the head of loss of estate as no amounts were granted by the tribunal. 27. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the KSRTC points out that, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection which was not at all warranted. In the light of **Satwinder Kaur case** , when the compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, no separate amount needs to be granted, for loss of love and affection. The - said contention has to be accepted and therefore **Rs.1,00,000/** granted towards loss of love and affection is to be deducted. As far as the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is concerned, the first claimant alone is entitled for compensation and therefore the amount of compensation has to be MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 43 fixed as Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, the excess amount of **Rs.60,000/-** is to be deducted under the said head. Similarly, an amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the tribunal for funeral expenses is also to be revised as Rs.15,000/- thereby there is an excess compensation of **Rs.10,000/-** . The said amount is also directed to be deducted. Thus, the additional compensation consequent to the aforesaid revision as referred above would come to Rs.1,22,200/- [(277200+15000)-(100000+60000+10000)]. Thus, the total compensation receivable by the appellant is determined as Rs.6,50,800/- (122200 + 528600). In this case also, as the liability of respondent Nos.1, 2 and the driver of the car in which the deceased in this case was travelling are jointly and several. Therefore, the claimants in this case are at liberty to recover the compensation from the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents either fully or partially, as they are joint tortfeasors. This is particularly because, as observed above, as far as the claim in this case is concerned, that is for the death of passenger in the said vehicle and even if a portion of liability was fixed upon the driver of the car in which she was travelling that can only be treated as a case of composite negligence and not contributory negligence. MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 44 Therefore, it is clarified that the claimant in this case is entitled to recover the entire compensation from the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents also. ## **OP(MV) No.227/2008 MACA 746/2015** 28. This is a claim petition submitted by the owner of the Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-07 T 9684 which collided with the KSRTC bus. The claim was for compensation for the damages sustained to the car. The tribunal has fixed the compensation as Rs.96,155/- and he was permitted to recover an amount of Rs.24,038/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and proportionate cost of Rs.2,000/-, being 25% of the said amount. The said restriction was consequent to the finding of the tribunal fixing the extent of negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle as 25%. Since this Court has already found that the contribution of the driver of the said vehicle was 50%, the claimant in this case would be entitled to recover 50% of the amount awarded by the tribunal from the owner driver and the bus, 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I do not find any legal grounds to provide any enhancement. Thus, the amount awarded by the MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 45 tribunal is confirmed subject to the modification that the claimant shall be entitled to recover 50% of the compensation in this regard. 25. In the light of the observations as above, all the appeals are hereby disposed of with the following orders: (i) The finding of the tribunal attributing the negligence on the part of the 4[th] respondent, the driver of the Alto car bearing registration No.KL04-S 2408 is hereby set aside. It is held that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus, the 2[nd] respondent and the driver of the Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-07 T 9684 for whose death, compensation is claimed by his legal representatives, in OP(MV) No.517/2007. The liability was apportioned among them in equal proportions. (ii) The 3[rd] respondent, the insurer of the Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-07 T 9684 is exonerated from the liability as the policy issued by them was found to be an “Act only” policy which would not take in the coverage of the passengers in the said car. (iii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in O.P.(MV) No.516/2007 is confirmed. However, it is clarified that respondents 1 and 2 and the driver of the Maruti car are jointly and severally MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 46 responsible for the accident. The claimants shall be entitled to recover the entire compensation from respondents 1 and 2. This will not, however, preclude the 1st and 2nd respondents from recovering 50% of the compensation if they were compelled to pay the entire compensation from the legal heirs of the deceased driver or the owner of the said car, by initiating appropriate proceedings. (iv) The quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in O.P.(MV) No.517/2007 is hereby modified by fixing the same as 12,25,200/- (Rupees twelve lakhs twenty five thousand and two hundred only) as the deceased was found to have contributed to the accident, and his contribution is fixed as 50%. The claimant shall be entitled to recover an amount of Rs.6,12,600/- (Rupees six lakhs twelve thousand and six hundred only) from respondents 1 and 2, along with interest at the rate as ordered by the tribunal and proportionate costs. (v) The amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal in O.P.(MV) No.518/2007 is modified and refixed as Rs.6,50,800/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty thousand and eight hundred only), which shall be recoverable with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs. As observed above, even though the liability was apportioned between 2[nd] respondent, the driver of the KSRTC bus and the driver of the Maruti car at the ratio of 50:50, the claimants shall be MACA.No.607/2015 & Conns. 47 entitled to recover the entire compensation from the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents being the joint tortfeasors along with interest at the rate as ordered by the tribunal with proportionate costs. It is clarified that, this would not preclude the 1[st] respondent KSRTC or the 2[nd] respondent, for initiating appropriate proceedings against the legal heirs of the driver of the Maruti car bearing registration No. KL 7 T 9684 or its owner, to recover 50% of the compensation by initiating appropriate proceedings. If the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents or any of them were compelled to pay the entire compensation. (vi) In O.P.(MV) No.227/2008, the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is confirmed. However, consequent to the finding on the question of contributory negligence, it is clarified that, the claimant shall be entitled to recover 50% of the said amount as compensation from respondents 1 and 2 along with interest at the rate as ordered by the tribunal with proportionate costs. (vii) In the light of the finding exonerating the 5[th] respondent/insurance company from liability, the amount already deposited by the said company shall be released to them upon submitting appropriate applications before the tribunal. **==> picture [25 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** DG/rpk/ncd/30.11.23